Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Antonia Wüst

dblp:368/7757 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
6ranked-venue papers
2as first author
6since 2021 · last 2026
0009-0005-8636-1337ORCID · corroborated

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 6 · 2 first-author · 6 since 2021Databases, data management, data science and information retrieval · 1 · 1 since 2021

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Artificial intelligence
4 papers
Trustworthy machine learning · 35% Knowledge representation and reasoning · 28% Vision and language · 18%

Topics — the 10 heaviest of 10, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Knowledge representation and reasoning
neuro-symbolic reasoning
1.822026
SLR: Automated Synthesis for Scalable Logical Reasoning · ACL (1) 2026
Neural Concept Binder · NeurIPS 2024
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
interpretability
1.722025
Object-Centric Concept-Bottlenecks · NeurIPS 2025
Bongard in Wonderland: Visual Puzzles that Still Make AI Go Mad? · ICML 2025
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Knowledge representation and reasoning
logic-based reasoning
1.012026
SLR: Automated Synthesis for Scalable Logical Reasoning · ACL (1) 2026
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › interpretability
concept-based models
0.912025
Object-Centric Concept-Bottlenecks · NeurIPS 2025
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › interpretability
concept bottleneck model
0.912025
Object-Centric Concept-Bottlenecks · NeurIPS 2025
Computer vision › Segmentation and scene understanding › scene understanding
object understanding
0.912025
Object-Centric Concept-Bottlenecks · NeurIPS 2025
Computer vision › Vision and language
vision-language model
0.912025
Bongard in Wonderland: Visual Puzzles that Still Make AI Go Mad? · ICML 2025
Computer vision › Vision and language
visual reasoning
0.912025
Bongard in Wonderland: Visual Puzzles that Still Make AI Go Mad? · ICML 2025
Computer vision › 3D vision
object representation
0.812024
Neural Concept Binder · NeurIPS 2024
Computer vision › Image recognition and object detection
visual concept recognition
0.312025
Bongard in Wonderland: Visual Puzzles that Still Make AI Go Mad? · ICML 2025

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

reinforcement learning · 1.0automated synthesis · 1.0object-centric foundation models · 0.9concept aggregation · 0.9benchmark evaluation · 0.9retrieval-based inference · 0.8hierarchical clustering · 0.8GPT-4 · 0.8
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2026 SLR: Automated Synthesis for Scalable Logical Reasoning
abstract
Lukas Helff, Ahmad Omar, Felix Friedrich, Antonia Wüst, Hikaru Shindo, Rupert Mitchell, Tim Woydt, Patrick Schramowski, Wolfgang Stammer, Kristian Kersting. Proceedings of the 64th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers). 2026.
Lukas Helff, Ahmad Omar, Felix Friedrich, Antonia Wüst, Hikaru Shindo, Rupert Mitchell, Tim Woydt, Patrick Schramowski, Wolfgang Stammer, Kristian Kersting
ACL (1)4
2025 Bongard in Wonderland: Visual Puzzles that Still Make AI Go Mad?
abstract
Recently, newly developed Vision-Language Models (VLMs), such as OpenAI’s o1, have emerged, seemingly demonstrating advanced reasoning capabilities across text and image modalities. However, the depth of these advances in language-guided perception and abstract reasoning remains underexplored, and it is unclear whether these models can truly live up to their ambitious promises. To assess the progress and identify shortcomings, we enter the wonderland of Bongard problems, a set of classic visual reasoning puzzles that require human-like abilities of pattern recognition and abstract reasoning. With our extensive evaluation setup, we show that while VLMs occasionally succeed in identifying discriminative concepts and solving some of the problems, they frequently falter. Surprisingly, even elementary concepts that may seem trivial to humans, such as simple spirals, pose significant challenges. Moreover, when explicitly asked to recognize ground truth concepts, they continue to falter, suggesting not only a lack of understanding of these elementary visual concepts but also an inability to generalize to unseen concepts. We compare the results of VLMs to human performance and observe that a significant gap remains between human visual reasoning capabilities and machine cognition.
Antonia Wüst, Tim Woydt, Lukas Helff, Inga Ibs, Wolfgang Stammer, Devendra Singh Dhami, Constantin A. Rothkopf, Kristian Kersting
ICML1
2025 Object-Centric Concept-Bottlenecks
abstract
Developing high-performing, yet interpretable models remains a critical challenge in modern AI. Concept-based models (CBMs) attempt to address this by extracting human-understandable concepts from a global encoding (e.g., image encoding) and then applying a linear classifier on the resulting concept activations, enabling transparent decision-making. However, their reliance on holistic image encodings limits their expressiveness in object-centric real-world settings and thus hinders their ability to solve complex vision tasks beyond single-label classification. To tackle these challenges, we introduce Object-Centric Concept Bottlenecks (OCB), a framework that combines the strengths of CBMs and pre-trained object-centric foundation models, boosting performance and interpretability. We evaluate OCB on complex image datasets and conduct a comprehensive ablation study to analyze key components of the framework, such as strategies for aggregating object-concept encodings. The results show that OCB outperforms traditional CBMs and allows one to make interpretable decisions for complex visual tasks.
David Steinmann, Wolfgang Stammer, Antonia Wüst, Kristian Kersting
NeurIPS3
2025 Right on Time: Revising Time Series Models by Constraining Their Explanations
Maurice Kraus, David Steinmann, Antonia Wüst, Andre Kokozinski, Kristian Kersting
ECML/PKDD (7)3
2024 Neural Concept Binder
abstract
The challenge in object-based visual reasoning lies in generating concept representations that are both descriptive and distinct. Achieving this in an unsupervised manner requires human users to understand the model's learned concepts and, if necessary, revise incorrect ones. To address this challenge, we introduce the Neural Concept Binder (NCB), a novel framework for deriving both discrete and continuous concept representations, which we refer to as "concept-slot encodings". NCB employs two types of binding: "soft binding", which leverages the recent SysBinder mechanism to obtain object-factor encodings, and subsequent "hard binding", achieved through hierarchical clustering and retrieval-based inference. This enables obtaining expressive, discrete representations from unlabeled images. Moreover, the structured nature of NCB's concept representations allows for intuitive inspection and the straightforward integration of external knowledge, such as human input or insights from other AI models like GPT-4. Additionally, we demonstrate that incorporating the hard binding mechanism preserves model performance while enabling seamless integration into both neural and symbolic modules for complex reasoning tasks. We validate the effectiveness of NCB through evaluations on our newly introduced CLEVR-Sudoku dataset.
Wolfgang Stammer, Antonia Wüst, David Steinmann, Kristian Kersting
NeurIPS2
2024 Pix2Code: Learning to Compose Neural Visual Concepts as Programs
abstract
The challenge in learning abstract concepts from images in an unsupervised fashion lies in the required integration of visual perception and generalizable relational reasoning. Moreover, the unsupervised nature of this task makes it necessary for human users to be able to understand a model’s learned concepts and potentially revise false behaviors. To tackle both the generalizability and interpretability constraints of visual concept learning, we propose Pix2Code, a framework that extends program synthesis to visual relational reasoning by utilizing the abilities of both explicit, compositional symbolic and implicit neural representations. This is achieved by retrieving object representations from images and synthesizing relational concepts as $\lambda$-calculus programs. We evaluate the diverse properties of Pix2Code on the challenging reasoning domains, Kandinsky Patterns, and CURI, testing its ability to identify compositional visual concepts that generalize to novel data and concept configurations. Particularly, in stark contrast to neural approaches, we show that Pix2Code’s representations remain human interpretable and can easily be revised for improved performance.
Antonia Wüst, Wolfgang Stammer, Quentin Delfosse, Devendra Singh Dhami, Kristian Kersting
UAI1